Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Type: Schemes

  • ‘Despite US tariffs, our fish export has increased… now exporting to the UK, Japan, China, Thailand and EU’

    ‘Despite US tariffs, our fish export has increased… now exporting to the UK, Japan, China, Thailand and EU’

    Why in the News

    India’s fish exports reached Rs 73,890 crore in 2025-26, an increase of about Rs 11,000 crore over the previous year. The United States imposed a tariff of more than 58 per cent on Indian goods in 2025, and shipments to that market fell by around 19 to 20 per cent. Growth of more than 20 per cent in the European Union and in countries with which India has signed free trade agreements covered the shortfall. The Union Minister for Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying set out this record alongside the production and infrastructure results claimed for the Blue Revolution, the Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana and the Fisheries and Aquaculture Infrastructure Development Fund. The tension is that the exports absorbing the tariff are marine products, and the production growth being cited is led by inland fisheries, which contribute only about 2 per cent of export earnings.

    How has fish production moved since 2013-14?

    1. Output has more than doubled: Total fish production rose from 95.79 lakh tonnes in 2013-14 to 197.75 lakh tonnes in 2024-25, a growth of 115 per cent.
    2. Inland fisheries led it: Inland production grew by 147 per cent over the same period.
    3. What paid for it: More than Rs 39,000 crore was invested through the Blue Revolution launched in 2015, the Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana and the Fisheries and Aquaculture Infrastructure Development Fund.
    4. The livelihood base: Three crore people work directly as fishers or fish farmers, and about six crore livelihoods depend on the wider value chain.
    5. An administrative separation: The fisheries department was carved out of the agriculture ministry in 2019 and given a ministry of its own.

    What does Bihar’s shift show about inland fisheries?

    1. A dependence reversed: Around 90 to 95 per cent of the fish sold in Bihar earlier came from Andhra Pradesh, and that share is now about 5 per cent.
    2. The production jump: Bihar’s output has grown eleven times since 2005 to approximately 10.89 lakh tonnes.
    3. From buyer to seller: Bihar now sends freshwater fish to Nepal, West Bengal and Jharkhand.

    How were export markets rebuilt after the tariff?

    1. The base being defended: Fish exports had risen from Rs 30,213 crore in 2013-14 to Rs 62,408 crore in 2024-25 before the tariff was imposed.
    2. Exporters were redirected: The ministry pushed exporters toward new destinations in coordination with the Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA), the statutory body under the commerce ministry that promotes marine product exports.
    3. The outreach: Round table conferences were held with ambassadors and high commissioners of 49 countries.
    4. Where the fish now goes: The new markets are the United Kingdom, Japan, China, Thailand and several European Union countries.
    5. What is actually shipped: Inland and freshwater fish make up only about 2 per cent of exports, so the earnings growth is in marine products.

    What did India change to meet importing countries’ requirements?

    1. Antibiotics were banned: European countries and the United Kingdom refuse fish produced using harmful antibiotics, and India prohibited their use in response.
    2. Origin travels with the fish: A traceability framework requires the origin of the fish to be established through a QR code.
    3. A domestic quality problem runs alongside: Farmed mangur is being confiscated in Bihar over its effect on native species and on local livelihoods, and injections used to accelerate its growth carry a health risk.

    Why is deep sea fishing being opened around Lakshadweep and the Andamans?

    1. The loss being addressed: Almost one lakh tonnes of tuna were believed to die naturally in those waters for want of fishing infrastructure.
    2. The gap in effort: Indian vessels were not fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the belt extending 200 nautical miles from the baseline within which a coastal state holds rights over living and non living resources, or on the high seas beyond it.
    3. What has been put in place: Fishing infrastructure for the islands was announced in the 2024 Budget, guidelines for the Exclusive Economic Zone and the high seas were formulated, and investor meetings were held in both island groups.
    4. The security condition: Only vessels carrying the national flag will be permitted to fish on the high seas, on the ground that the sea is a national security concern.
    5. The target species: Tuna is the intended catch, among the most expensive fish in the world and in high global demand.

    How are fishing communities being protected against climate risk?

    1. Transponders on vessels: Fishing vessels are being fitted with transponders connected to satellites.
    2. Contact and early warning: A fisher at sea for 15 to 20 days can stay in touch with family through an Android phone linked to the transponder, and alerts warn of approaching storms and direct vessels away from danger.
    3. A fuel saving by product: The same system indicates where fish are likely to be found, which cuts searching time and fuel use.
    4. The stated limit of the mandate: Rising sea temperatures and changing rainfall are treated as sitting with the environment ministry rather than with the fisheries ministry.

    Why does India’s livestock scale not convert into exports?

    1. The scale: India ranks first in the world in milk production and second in egg production.
    2. The barrier: Foot and mouth disease and brucellosis in the animal population restrict how much India can export.
    3. The response: Vaccination campaigns aimed at eradicating foot and mouth disease have brought outbreaks down from 132 in 2019 to 40.
    4. A domestic standards question: Four States have banned analogue paneer, an artificial product that is not made from milk and that carries a health risk.

    How is the stray cattle problem being addressed at source?

    1. It is a State subject: Management of stray animals sits with State governments rather than with the Centre.
    2. Sex sorted semen changes the calf ratio: Artificial insemination using sex sorted semen produces around 90 per cent female calves.
    3. Why the abandoned animals are male: Most animals left on roads are male, since tractors have replaced oxen in farm work.
    4. The incentive being created: More female calves mean more milk and more income, giving an owner a reason to rear the animal rather than abandon it.

    What is the Centre’s role in panchayat finance?

    1. The constitutional position: Under the 73rd Constitutional Amendment the panchayat is a distinct tier of government, and the laws governing its functioning are State laws.
    2. On the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996: The Act completes three decades this year and its implementation is delayed in several States. The stated central position is that States hold the power to legislate here, so the Centre does not intervene.
    3. What the Centre transfers: The Centre releases the grants recommended by the Finance Commission to States in a 90:10 ratio determined by population and geographical conditions.
    4. The release condition: States must pass the money on to panchayats within 10 days, failing which the second instalment is withheld.
    5. Performance linked grants: The Sixteenth Finance Commission has recommended that 20 per cent of the grant be performance based, which forces panchayats to develop their own revenue sources.
    6. Capacity building: Training of elected representatives, including women representatives, is run with trainers drawn from institutions such as the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad.
    7. Bihar’s reservation record: Bihar reserved 50 per cent of seats for women in Panchayati Raj institutions in 2006 and in local bodies in 2007, and women were 53 per cent of those elected in the last panchayat election.

    Conclusion

    Production was never the constraint here. Exports held up because the ministry found new buyers and met the residue and traceability conditions those buyers impose, which is a compliance achievement rather than a fishing one. The marker to watch is whether the island investor meetings convert into Indian flagged vessels actually working the Exclusive Economic Zone.

    Back2Basics

    1. Administering department: Implemented by the Department of Fisheries under the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying.
    2. Launch and outlay: Launched in 2020 with an investment of Rs 20,050 crore, the largest ever committed to the fisheries sector in India.
    3. Objectives: Raise fish production and productivity, modernise the value chain from harvest to market, and double the incomes of fishers and fish farmers.
    4. Targeted beneficiaries: Fishers, fish farmers, fish workers and vendors, fisheries cooperatives and fish farmer producer organisations.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2015, GS3, 12 marks] Livestock rearing has a big potential for providing non-farm employment and income in rural areas. Discuss suggesting suitable measures to promote this sector in India.”

  • All workers shifted to VB-G RAM G; e-KYC is not mandatory, says Centre

    Why in the News

    The Union Ministry of Rural Development has said that every worker registered under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) has been migrated to the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin), or VB-G RAM G, irrespective of whether electronic Know Your Customer (e-KYC) verification of the job card is complete. The statement answers reporting that the job cards of 57 lakh active workers have not completed that verification. The Ministry has not disputed those numbers and says e-KYC is a database authentication measure rather than a precondition for exercising the statutory right to demand employment. The tension is that a verification requirement introduced to clean the worker database sits directly on top of a right that is meant to be exercisable on demand.

    What did the Ministry actually commit to?

    1. Migration is unconditional: Every worker registered under MGNREGA has been moved to the new mission regardless of e-KYC status.
    2. Pending verification does not block work: A pending e-KYC does not prevent a worker from demanding or from receiving employment.
    3. An exception route exists: An exception mechanism is available to facilitate the employment demand and the provision of work for workers whose verification is pending.
    4. The right is characterised as statutory: The Ministry’s position is that e-KYC authenticates the database and does not condition the statutory entitlement.

    What do the coverage numbers show?

    1. The verified total is large: e-KYC has been completed for 15.89 crore workers overall.
    2. Active worker coverage is near complete: 10.27 crore of 10.84 crore active workers have been verified, approximately 95 percent.
    3. The residual is the disputed group: 57 lakh active workers remain unverified, a figure the government has not contested.
    4. Employment provision is reported separately: Around 2.11 crore workers have so far been offered employment under the new mission, and the Ministry states that every worker who demanded employment was offered work as per demand.

    Where does responsibility for the verification sit?

    1. The task is with the States: e-KYC of workers is the responsibility of the concerned State and Union Territory governments.
    2. The stated purpose is database integrity: It is being undertaken to strengthen authentication and maintain an accurate and credible worker database.
    3. The Ministry characterises it as trivial: The process can ordinarily be completed in less than 30 seconds.
    4. The Centre’s role is advisory and supervisory: States have been advised to expeditiously complete verification of all active workers, with the Ministry monitoring the exercise.

    Challenges to biometric authentication of rural workers

    1. Fingerprint authentication fails for manual labourers: Sustained manual work erodes fingerprint ridges, so the biometric most commonly used for authentication is least reliable for the population the scheme is designed for. Eg. Authentication failures among elderly and manual workers were a documented cause of denied ration entitlements after Aadhaar seeding of the Public Distribution System. Fix. Make iris and face authentication, and offline verification against a signed identity document, equally valid at the field level.
    2. Connectivity gaps convert a 30 second process into a multi day one: Online authentication in low network blocks requires repeat visits to a common service centre at the worker’s own cost. Eg. Workers in remote blocks routinely travel to block headquarters for banking correspondent services because village level connectivity is intermittent. Fix. Permit offline capture at the gram panchayat with batch upload, so the worker’s trip does not depend on live connectivity.
    3. Database cleaning has historically deleted genuine workers: Bulk verification drives produce deletions of active job cards recorded as duplicates or as non existent. Eg. Crores of job cards were deleted during MGNREGA database cleaning exercises, with State level audits later finding genuine workers among them. Fix. Require a written, appealable deletion order served on the worker before a job card is removed.
    4. The exception mechanism is only as good as its field awareness: A right that survives on paper still fails where the panchayat functionary treats verification as mandatory. Eg. Aadhaar Based Payment System rollout saw wage payments stall for workers whose seeding was incomplete despite instructions that work could not be denied. Fix. Issue the exception route as a numbered circular to every gram panchayat with a stated escalation officer, rather than as a press statement.

    Conclusion

    The Ministry’s clarification settles the legal position and leaves the administrative one open, since the entitlement is denied at the panchayat counter rather than in the policy document. What to watch is whether the exception mechanism is actually invoked for the unverified workers in the coming employment season, measured by work provided to them rather than by the verification percentage.

    Back2Basics

    1. Statute: Enacted in 2005 and administered by the Ministry of Rural Development, it is the legal basis of the rural employment guarantee.
    2. The guarantee: It provides at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in a financial year to every rural household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work.
    3. Demand driven design: Work must be provided within 15 days of a demand being registered, failing which the worker is entitled to an unemployment allowance from the State.
    4. Delivery unit: The job card issued to a household is the document that records registration, demand and days of work provided.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2011] Among the following who are eligible to benefit from the “Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act”? (a) Adult members of only the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe households (b) Adult members of below poverty line (BPL) households (c) Adult members of households of all backward communities (d) Adult members of any household ANSWER: (d)”

  • Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana crop insurance record

    Why in the News

    PIB set out the coverage and claims record of the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY). PMFBY is the national crop insurance scheme.

    Core facts

    1. What it is: PMFBY provides crop insurance against non preventable natural risks. Cover runs from pre sowing to post harvest.
    2. Coverage record: About 56.96 crore farmer applications were insured since inception.
    3. Claims paid: About Rs 1,54,469 crore was paid in claims since inception.
    4. Farmer premium: Farmers pay 2 percent for Kharif crops, 1.5 percent for Rabi crops and 5 percent for commercial and horticultural crops. The government pays the balance premium.
    5. Design principle: The scheme follows a One Nation, One Crop, One Premium approach. It removed premium capping so full admissible claims are paid.
    6. Technology: Loss assessment uses remote sensing, drones and smartphones. Key systems are YES-TECH (Yield Estimation System based on Technology) and CROPIC (Collection of Real time Observations and Photographs of Crops).

    Static Context

    1. Launch: PMFBY was launched in 2016. It replaced earlier crop insurance schemes.
    2. Voluntary since 2020: Enrolment became voluntary for all farmers from the 2020 revamp. It was earlier compulsory for loanee farmers.
    3. Delivery platform: The National Crop Insurance Portal (NCIP) digitises enrolment, premium flow and claims.
    4. Implementing ministry: The scheme is run by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.

    Prelims angle

    1. Premium hook: Farmer premium is 2 percent Kharif, 1.5 percent Rabi, 5 percent commercial and horticultural. A uniform 2 percent for all crops is incorrect.
    2. Scope hook: The scheme covers post harvest losses from cyclones and unseasonal rain, and localised risks such as hailstorm and landslide.
    3. Tech hook: YES-TECH for yield estimation and CROPIC for photograph based crop verification.
    4. Year hook: Launched in 2016, voluntary since 2020.

    Mains angle

    GS3 (agricultural risk, crop insurance, subsidies). A question can ask how crop insurance protects small and marginal farmers against climate risk.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2016, GS3, 12.5 marks] Give the vulnerability of Indian agriculture to vagaries of nature, discuss the need for crop insurance and bring out the salient features of the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY). [2016] With reference to ‘Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana’, consider the following statements: 1. Under this scheme, farmers will have to pay a uniform premium of two percent for any crop they cultivate in any season of the year. 2. This scheme covers post-harvest losses arising out of cyclones and unseasonal rains. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Answer: (b)”

  • Per Drop More Crop expands water efficient micro irrigation

    Why in the News

    PIB detailed the reach of the Per Drop More Crop (PDMC) component of national irrigation policy. Revised guidelines widen the water management activities that states can fund.

    Core facts

    1. What it is: Per Drop More Crop promotes drip and sprinkler irrigation. The aim is higher water use efficiency at the farm.
    2. Coverage record: About 83.06 lakh hectares were brought under micro irrigation from 2015-16 to 2023-24. About 30.55 lakh hectares of that were added in the last three years.
    3. Central assistance: About Rs 18,714.69 crore was released to states since inception.
    4. Subsidy pattern: Assistance is 55 percent for small and marginal farmers and 45 percent for other farmers. Northeastern and Himalayan states get 25 percent higher unit cost support.
    5. Revised guidelines: States can now plan micro level water management works such as diggi construction and water harvesting under the scheme.
    6. Figure caveat: Some current media figures cite about 115 lakh hectares and 12.30 lakh farmers. Those could not be verified on a fetchable PIB detail page, so the PIB verified figure of 83.06 lakh hectares is used above.

    Static Context

    1. Parent scheme history: PDMC ran under the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana (PMKSY) from 2015-16 to 2021-22. Since 2022-23 it runs under the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY).
    2. Micro Irrigation Fund: The Micro Irrigation Fund (MIF) was created with the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD). Its initial corpus was Rs 5,000 crore.
    3. Interest support: The Fund gives states a 3 percent interest subvention on loans for micro irrigation expansion.
    4. PMKSY mandate: PMKSY, launched in 2015, follows the goal of Har Khet Ko Paani and improved on farm water use.

    Prelims angle

    1. Umbrella hook: PDMC now sits under RKVY, earlier under PMKSY.
    2. Fund hook: The Micro Irrigation Fund is with NABARD, corpus Rs 5,000 crore.
    3. Concept hook: Micro irrigation cuts fertiliser and nutrient loss and can check groundwater depletion. It is not the only means of dryland irrigation.

    Mains angle

    GS3 (types of irrigation and irrigation systems). A question can ask how micro irrigation addresses India’s water stress and how coverage can be widened.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2021, GS3, 10 marks] How and to what extent would micro-irrigation help in solving India’s water crisis? [2016, GS3, 12.5 marks] What is water-use efficiency? Describe the role of micro-irrigation in increasing the water-use efficiency. [2011] With reference to micro-irrigation, which of the following statements is/are correct? 1. Fertilizer/nutrient loss can be reduced. 2. It is the only means of irrigation in dry land farming. 3. In some areas of farming, receding of the groundwater table can be checked. (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Answer: (c)”

  • ‘No material price hit on CBG on revised offtake framework’

    Why in the News

    The Union Petroleum Ministry has said that the revised compressed biogas (CBG) offtake price will not translate into a material price increase for gas consumers. The assurance answers concerns raised after the Union Cabinet cleared a revised Galvanizing Organic Bio Agro Resources Dhan (GOBARdhan) scheme on 6 August, which introduced a CBG offtake price of Rs 2,110 per metric million British thermal unit (MMBtu). The Ministry states that the full offtake price will not be recovered from consumers, since a government funded affordability cushion and a much larger gas pool absorb the difference. The contested point is whether a producer facing price is being set well above the consumer facing price, and who carries the gap between the two.

    What does the revised offtake framework fix?

    1. A single administered offtake price: The revised scheme sets the price at which compressed biogas is picked up from producers at Rs 2,110 per MMBtu, replacing case by case commercial negotiation.
    2. The stated purpose is producer viability: The Ministry describes the framework as giving CBG producers a “stable and viable” price so that plants can operate “sustainably”.
    3. Two prices, not one: The offtake price and the price billed at the burner tip are set by separate mechanisms, so a movement in one does not carry through to the other.

    How is the consumer insulated from the offtake price?

    1. A direct affordability cushion: The government provides a cushion of Rs 10 per kilogram of CBG, funded from the exchequer rather than recovered in tariffs.
    2. Stacking against a wider gas pool: The biogas volume is blended into a substantially larger pool of natural gas, so its higher unit cost is diluted across the whole pool before reaching the burner tip.
    3. The two work together, not separately: The Ministry’s position rests on the cushion and the pooling operating at the same time, not on either one alone.

    Challenges to the compressed biogas offtake framework

    1. The subsidy is an open ended fiscal commitment: An affordability cushion fixed per kilogram grows in direct proportion to volume, so success in scaling the sector raises the annual outgo rather than reducing it. Eg. The blending obligation for compressed biogas in city gas networks is designed to rise year on year. Fix. Publish a declining glide path for the cushion alongside the offtake price, so producers plan against a known taper.
    2. Pooling only dilutes cost while the biogas share stays small: The wider gas pool absorbs the price difference precisely because compressed biogas is a small fraction of it, and that cushion thins as the mandated share rises. Eg. Domestic gas allocation to city gas distribution is already rationed against demand. Fix. Tie each upward revision of the blending obligation to a reassessed pooled price so the dilution assumption is tested rather than assumed.
    3. Feedstock aggregation remains the binding constraint: Plant economics turn on assured daily supply of cattle dung, press mud and agricultural residue, which no offtake price by itself organises. Eg. Several commissioned compressed biogas plants run below rated capacity for want of steady feedstock. Fix. Contract feedstock aggregation through dairy cooperatives and sugar mills at the plant approval stage, so supply is committed before capital is sunk.
    4. Fermented organic manure has no assured market: A biogas plant produces a large byproduct stream that is only viable when the manure sells, and its offtake is not covered by this price framework. Eg. Fermented organic manure competes against heavily subsidised urea on farm gate price. Fix. Extend the market development assistance already notified for organic manure to the full output of registered compressed biogas plants.

    Conclusion

    The framework sets a producer facing price and leaves the consumer facing price to be settled elsewhere, which is what the Ministry’s assurance rests on. That assurance holds only while compressed biogas remains a small share of the gas pool. The next test is the scheme’s operating guidelines, which will show whether the support is open ended or tapered and how feedstock supply is to be secured.

    Back2Basics: GOBARdhan

    1. What it is: An initiative to convert cattle dung, agricultural residue and other organic waste into biogas, compressed biogas and organic manure.
    2. Where it sits: It runs as a unified registration and monitoring framework across ministries, with the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation operating its central registration portal.
    3. What it targets: Village level cleanliness, a rural income stream from waste, and a domestic substitute for imported natural gas.
    4. How it links to fuel policy: Compressed biogas produced under it feeds the Sustainable Alternative Towards Affordable Transportation (SATAT) offtake route into city gas distribution networks.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2020] According to India’s National Policy on Biofuels, which of the following can be used as raw materials for the production of biofuels? 1. Cassava 2. Damaged wheat grains 3. Groundnut seeds 4. Horse gram 5. Rotten potatoes 6. Sugar beet Select the correct answer using the code given below: (a) 1, 2, 5 and 6 only (b) 1, 3, 4 and 6 only (c) 2, 3, 4 and 5 only (d) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 ANSWER: (a)”

  • Govt. to replace 2 lakh old trucks/buses in Delhi-NCR in one year (PARIVARTAN scheme)

    Govt. to replace 2 lakh old trucks/buses in Delhi-NCR in one year (PARIVARTAN scheme)

    Why in the News

    The Union government aims to replace more than two lakh trucks and buses in Delhi and the National Capital Region with BS VI or electric vehicles within a year under the PARIVARTAN scheme, the Road Secretary has said. This brings forward a two year implementation timeline the Union Cabinet had earlier approved for the scheme. Trucks and buses make up only 3.1% of the region’s total vehicle fleet but contribute 36% of vehicular PM2.5 emissions, so the scheme concentrates replacement incentives on a small segment of the fleet rather than vehicles as a whole.

    What is the PARIVARTAN scheme?

    1. A vehicle renewal and incentive scheme: PARIVARTAN (the Programme for Accelerated Renewal and Incentivization of Vehicle Assets for Reducing Transport Air Pollution and Network Emissions) is a Union scheme to replace old trucks and buses in Delhi NCR with cleaner vehicles.
    2. Targets older commercial vehicles across four jurisdictions: It covers trucks and buses registered in Delhi and the NCR districts of Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh that conform to BS IV or older emission norms.
    3. Jointly funded and implemented: The scheme is funded through the National Capital Region Planning Board under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs and implemented by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.

    What incentives does PARIVARTAN offer to push buyers toward cleaner vehicles?

    1. A large but shared financial outlay: The scheme carries a total financial outlay of Rs. 9,585 crore, of which Rs. 5,041 crore is central budgetary support.
    2. Lower cost of borrowing: Eligible buyers get a 5% interest subvention on vehicle loans for five years.
    3. Waived recurring and one time levies: Eligible buyers of new BS VI vehicles get a 100% road tax waiver for 10 years and exemption from registration fees.
    4. A manufacturer side discount: Eligible buyers also get at least an 8% discount on the ex showroom price from participating vehicle manufacturers.

    Challenges to the PARIVARTAN scheme

    1. Fleet turnover in one year is an aggressive compression: Compressing the replacement of over two lakh vehicles into one year against an originally planned two year timeline strains scrapping, registration and financing capacity built for a slower pace. Eg. India’s separate vehicle scrappage policy has itself faced slow uptake since 2021 because of limited authorised scrapping facility capacity in most States. Fix. Expand authorised vehicle scrapping facility capacity in Delhi NCR ahead of the compressed timeline, rather than relying on facilities sized for the original two year plan.
    2. Small operators may lack access to the incentives: Interest subvention and manufacturer discounts assume buyers can access formal vehicle financing, which many small truck and bus operators in the informal freight sector cannot. Eg. A large share of India’s freight trucking fleet is owned by operators with one to five vehicles, who typically borrow from informal lenders rather than banks. Fix. Route a dedicated financing window for small fleet owners through public sector banks or the National Capital Region Planning Board itself, with relaxed collateral norms.
    3. Cross state enforcement is harder than a single city ban: The scheme spans Delhi and NCR districts across three States, and inconsistent enforcement of the BS IV cutoff across State transport departments can let older vehicles keep operating in weaker enforcement pockets. Eg. Delhi’s earlier ban on end of life diesel vehicles pushed many such vehicles into neighbouring NCR districts rather than off the road entirely. Fix. Link registration renewal and permit issuance across all four jurisdictions to a shared, real time vehicle emission compliance database.

    Conclusion

    The PARIVARTAN scheme now targets replacing over two lakh Delhi NCR trucks and buses within one year instead of two, backed by a Rs. 9,585 crore incentive package. The scheme’s next milestone is the pace of actual vehicle replacement against this compressed one year timeline, particularly among small and informal fleet operators who face the greatest financing and enforcement gaps.

  • 57 lakh active workers await e-KYC under new job scheme

    Why in the News

    The e-KYC verification rate of active rural employment guarantee workers stands at 94.88 per cent, two months after the launch of the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission, Gramin (VB-G RAM G), leaving 57 lakh active workers unverified. The Union Rural Development Minister had assured, ahead of the scheme’s rollout, that existing e-KYC verified job cards under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) would remain valid until new Gramin Rozgar Guarantee Cards are issued, and states had been asked to complete verification of all remaining active workers by the end of February, a deadline that was missed. e-KYC verification has now been made a condition for availing work under the new scheme, raising questions about whether unverified workers can access employment despite the Ministry’s assurance that no eligible worker will be left behind.

    What is the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission, Gramin (VB-G RAM G)?

    1. What it replaces: VB-G RAM G is the new rural employment guarantee scheme that has replaced MGNREGS.
    2. Access condition: e-KYC verification of job cards is a condition for availing work under the new scheme.
    3. Transition safeguard: The Ministry has allowed exceptions in a few cases and assured that existing verified job cards remain valid until new cards are issued.

    What does the data show about the verification gap?

    1. Overall registration lags active workers: The e-KYC rate is 71 per cent among all registered workers against 94.88 per cent among active workers, those who availed work at least once in the last three years, leaving 57 lakh active workers unverified.
    2. Employment generation has fallen sharply: Person-days generated under VB-G RAM G in July, 7.67 crore, were 49.94 per cent lower than the 15.33 crore person-days generated under MGNREGS in July of the previous year.
    3. Wide state variation: Tamil Nadu has the highest e-KYC rates among large states, 99.32 per cent for active workers and 84.89 per cent overall, followed by Rajasthan at 95.66 per cent and 69.45 per cent, Uttar Pradesh at 94.21 per cent and 58.89 per cent, and Andhra Pradesh at 90.4 per cent and 82.32 per cent, while Bihar’s overall rate of 58.05 per cent is among the lowest for large states.

    Why did States miss the e-KYC deadlines?

    1. First deadline missed: The Rural Development Ministry asked States on 30 January to complete e-KYC verification of all remaining active workers within a week, as revealed by a Right to Information application filed by the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information.
    2. Second deadline also missed: States were again asked on 12 February to complete verification by the end of February, and nearly seven months later the target remains unmet.

    Challenges to VB-G RAM G’s rollout

    1. Verification bottleneck denying access: Making e-KYC mandatory before the backlog is cleared risks excluding otherwise eligible workers from guaranteed work. Eg. 57 lakh active workers remain unverified two months into the rollout. Fix. Extend the grace period for unverified active workers until states clear the backlog, rather than making verification a hard gate from the outset.
    2. State capacity variation: The wide gap between states, Bihar’s 58.05 per cent overall rate against Tamil Nadu’s 84.89 per cent, points to weak last-mile administrative capacity in some states. Eg. Bihar remains among the lowest performing large states despite repeated Ministry deadlines. Fix. Direct targeted central enumerator support to the lowest-performing states rather than applying a uniform national deadline.

    Conclusion

    The transition to VB-G RAM G is proceeding despite an unresolved verification backlog. The Ministry’s next milestone is closing the gap for the 57 lakh unverified active workers before its assurance of uninterrupted access is tested against actual demand for work.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “Among the following who are eligible to benefit from the “Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act”? … (d) Adult members of any household” Answer: (d) — “MGNREGA benefits any adult member of a rural household, regardless of caste or economic status, providing 100 days of guaranteed work annually.” (2011, Microtheme: SchemeXRural/Agri, Subject: Governance)

  • Govt. track record on free coaching plan is poor: Congress

    Why in the News

    The Congress has questioned the Centre’s decision to launch free online coaching for students, citing the government’s poor implementation record under an existing coaching scheme. The criticism follows a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Social Justice and Empowerment report, tabled on 10 August, showing the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment enrolled only 2,790 of a targeted 10,500 candidates, about 26 per cent, under its existing free coaching scheme over three years, with the scheme’s allocation declining every year. It also follows the Leader of the Opposition’s remarks at a Kota event on 17 June that Indian families spend 2.5 times more on coaching centres than the Union government invests in education. The Congress has termed the free online coaching announcement an “accountability-evading gimmick,” questioning the government’s capacity to deliver at scale.

    What is the Social Justice Ministry’s free coaching scheme?

    1. Administering ministry: The scheme is run by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment for candidates from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and other disadvantaged groups.
    2. Enrollment target: It had set a target of enrolling 10,500 candidates over three years.
    3. Funding trend: Its budgetary allocation has declined each year since.

    What does the committee’s report reveal about the scheme’s implementation?

    1. Sharp enrollment shortfall: Only 2,790 of the targeted 10,500 candidates, about 26 per cent, were enrolled over three years.
    2. Declining allocation: Funding for the scheme fell each year even as the shortfall persisted.
    3. Political context of the new announcement: The Congress says the Prime Minister’s Independence Day announcement of free online coaching followed public pressure after the Opposition Leader’s remarks on coaching dependence at Kota.

    Conclusion

    The dispute centres on whether the Centre can execute a new free online coaching commitment given its own record on the existing scheme. The government has not yet released implementation details for the new initiative, and the enrollment and funding data for the existing scheme remain the yardstick against which its rollout will be judged.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    No direct PYQ traced in the provided files.

  • After Minister, Secy’s kin availed of agri subsidy scheme, new rules bar them

    After Minister, Secy’s kin availed of agri subsidy scheme, new rules bar them

    Why in the News

    The National Horticulture Board (NHB) amended the Scheme Guidelines of the Commercial Horticulture and Cold Storage Schemes on 21 August 2026, with immediate effect. The amendment bars holders of constitutional posts, serving ministers, members of legislatures, mayors, district panchayat chiefs and government employees from financial assistance under NHB schemes, and redefines ‘family’ to cover the applicant’s spouse, father, mother, sons and daughters. It follows a 27 June 2026 investigation reporting that a Union Minister of State and the kin of a serving Central government Secretary had availed subsidy for their cucumber farms. The tension is that a scheme designed to promote large scale commercial horticulture had eligibility rules loose enough to route public subsidy to the families of the officials administering the sector.

    What is the Development of Commercial Horticulture scheme?

    1. Purpose: The scheme, formally the Development of Commercial Horticulture through Production and Post-Harvest Management of Horticulture Crops, promotes commercial farming of horticultural crops on a large scale, meaning cultivation for profit rather than subsistence.
    2. Crops covered: It covers three vegetables, capsicum, cucumber and tomato, and eight varieties of flowers including rose, lilium and chrysanthemum.
    3. The assistance it offered: The scheme offered a maximum subsidy of 50 per cent of the project cost, capped per family.
    4. Who runs it: It is administered by the National Horticulture Board, an autonomous body under the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare.

    Who is now barred from the subsidy?

    1. Constitutional post holders: Present holders of constitutional posts are ineligible for financial assistance under NHB schemes.
    2. Elected representatives and office bearers: Present ministers and ministers of state, members of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, members of State Legislative Assemblies and Councils, mayors of municipal corporations and chairpersons of district panchayats are ineligible.
    3. Serving government employees: Serving employees of Central and State government ministries and departments, public sector undertakings, autonomous bodies and local bodies are ineligible, except Multi-Tasking Staff, Class-IV and Group D employees.
    4. Pensioners above a threshold: Superannuated and retired pensioners receiving a monthly pension of Rs 10,000 or more are ineligible, excluding the same Multi-Tasking Staff, Class-IV and Group D categories.
    5. Groups of farmers: A group of farmers is the fifth barred category, closing the route by which several individuals could apply jointly.
    6. A single concession: Family members of persons in the barred categories may avail one-time assistance, subject to the revised definition of family.

    How has the definition of ‘family’ changed?

    1. The new definition: For determining eligibility under NHB schemes, ‘family’ now comprises the applicant’s spouse, father, mother, sons and daughters.
    2. The definition it replaces: The old guidelines defined family as the husband, wife and dependent minor children, which left adult children and parents free to apply separately.
    3. One member per family: Only one member of a family is eligible to avail financial assistance under NHB schemes, whether individually or through a Hindu Undivided Family, a partnership or proprietorship firm, or as a director of a company.
    4. Assistance is attributed to the family: Financial assistance availed by any member of a family is treated as assistance availed by that family, and no further assistance is admissible to any other member under any NHB scheme or component.
    5. The unutilised balance is forfeited: The bar applies irrespective of any unutilised portion of the maximum admissible ceiling, and constitutes the final entitlement of the family across all NHB schemes and components.

    What else did the amendment change?

    1. The subsidy rate was cut: The subsidy component was reduced from 50 per cent to 35 per cent for beneficiaries in general category states.
    2. A higher rate for hill and North Eastern states: The rate is 45 per cent in North Eastern and Himalayan states, retaining a differential for higher cost regions.
    3. Cold storage assistance was capped: The maximum subsidy for cold storage capacity was capped at Rs 2 crore.
    4. A voluntary exit route was created: A beneficiary may, during the prescribed lock-in period, voluntarily opt out by refunding the entire subsidy amount with applicable interest, and is then discharged from the obligations and restrictions arising from the assistance.
    5. Misrepresentation now carries recovery: Suppression, misrepresentation or furnishing of incorrect information to obtain assistance renders the applicant liable for recovery of the assistance released, along with applicable interest.
    6. The stated objective: The NHB circular states the amendments are meant to rationalise financial assistance, ensure equitable distribution of benefits, prevent duplication of subsidy, and make implementation more transparent and effective.

    What prompted the amendment?

    1. The Minister’s own case: A 27 June 2026 report found that Bhagirath Choudhary, Minister of State in the Union Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, availed a Rs 99 lakh subsidy for his farm in 2025 under the same scheme administered by his own ministry.
    2. The subsidy was returned: He returned the subsidy amount to the government a month later.
    3. The Secretary’s kin: The same investigation showed that the wife, son and mother of senior Indian Administrative Service officer Naresh Pal Gangwar, then serving as Secretary of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, were among the beneficiaries of the scheme.
    4. A posting was withdrawn: The government appointed that officer as Higher Education Secretary on 23 July 2026, and cancelled the appointment on 10 August 2026 before he joined.
    5. The design gap the cases exposed: Neither case required a false declaration, because the old ‘family’ definition covered only husband, wife and dependent minor children, and no category of applicant was excluded by office.

    Challenges to the National Horticulture Board subsidy scheme

    1. Verification of family relationships is self declared: The Board has no independent database linking an applicant to parents, adult children or spouse, so the widened definition depends on the applicant disclosing it. Eg. The barred cases surfaced through a newspaper investigation rather than through scheme level scrutiny. Fix. Seed applications with Aadhaar based family linkage from the ration card or land record database, so a second application from the same family is flagged automatically.
    2. Corporate structures can defeat the one-member rule: The bar covers a Hindu Undivided Family, a firm and a directorship, but not shareholding through nominees or layered entities. Eg. The revised rule lists specific vehicles rather than applying a beneficial ownership test. Fix. Apply a beneficial ownership disclosure requirement above a defined shareholding threshold, on the model used for company law filings.
    3. A lower subsidy rate deters the small grower: The reduced rate raises the own contribution needed for a poly-house or a cold store, which is harder for a one hectare holder than for a large operator. Eg. Protected cultivation and cold storage carry high fixed setup costs regardless of holding size. Fix. Retain the higher rate for small and marginal holders and Farmer Producer Organisations while applying the reduced rate to larger project sizes.
    4. Cold storage assistance concentrates geographically: Capital subsidy flows to states that already have storage clusters and applicants able to raise the balance capital. Eg. Cold storage capacity in India remains concentrated in a few states, leaving wide gaps elsewhere. Fix. Ring-fence a share of the cold storage corpus for districts with no existing capacity, appraised against a mapped storage deficit.
    5. Lock-in monitoring is weak: The new voluntary exit and recovery provisions assume the Board can track asset use through the lock-in period, which requires physical inspection capacity it does not have. Eg. The guidelines rely on the beneficiary approaching the Board rather than on periodic verification. Fix. Mandate geo-tagged and time-stamped asset verification at fixed intervals during the lock-in, released through the scheme portal.
    6. No public beneficiary register exists: Without a searchable list of who received what, the same defect can recur undetected until it is reported externally. Eg. Both the Minister’s case and the Secretary’s family’s case came to light through an outside investigation. Fix. Publish a district-wise beneficiary register with name, project and sanctioned amount, on the model of the public disclosure already used for fertiliser and food subsidy transfers.

    Conclusion

    The scheme guidelines have been amended by an NHB circular dated 21 August 2026 and apply with immediate effect, so the barred categories and the widened family definition already govern fresh applications. The amendment also cuts the subsidy rate for general category states, caps cold storage assistance at Rs 2 crore, and creates a voluntary refund route out of the scheme. The circular sets no further date or review milestone, and the operative test will be whether the widened family definition is verified at application stage rather than after the fact.

    “[2018, GS3, 15 marks] Assess the role of National Horticulture Mission (NHM) in boosting the production, productivity and income of horticulture farms. How far has it succeeded in increasing the income of farmers?”

  • Ethanol blending policy is behind rise in sugar prices, says Opposition

    Ethanol blending policy is behind rise in sugar prices, says Opposition

    Why in the News

    Retail sugar prices reached Rs 62.5 to Rs 64 per kg in Maharashtra and Rs 63 to Rs 64 per kg in Karnataka on 20 August. The corresponding ranges on 1 August were Rs 46.2 to Rs 46.9 and Rs 46.25 to Rs 47 per kg, with Uttar Pradesh at Rs 44.95 to Rs 46.7. Closing stocks for the 2025-26 sugar season are set to fall to a nine-year low on a production shortfall. The ethanol blending programme has been named as the cause of the spike. What is contested is whether diverting cane to fuel drove the price rise, or whether a crop failure larger than the diversion did.

    What is the Ethanol Blended Petrol Programme?

    1. A fuel substitution programme run through sugar mills: The Ethanol Blended Petrol (EBP) Programme requires oil marketing companies to blend ethanol into petrol, and it sources that ethanol partly from sugarcane. It runs under the National Policy on Biofuels, 2018.
    2. Cane can be diverted at three points: Mills may make ethanol from direct sugarcane juice or syrup, from B-heavy molasses, or from C-heavy molasses, each of which sacrifices a different quantity of sugar.
    3. The 20 per cent target was met early: The blending target of 20 per cent ethanol in petrol was achieved ahead of its 2025-26 deadline.
    4. It exists to fix mill finances as much as fuel imports: Diversion gives mills a buyer who pays on delivery, which shortens the cane payment cycle to farmers and cuts crude oil imports at the same time.

    What is sugar recovery?

    1. Recovery is the yield of the crush: Recovery rate is the sugar produced expressed as a percentage of the cane crushed, and it decides how much sugar a given tonnage of cane actually yields.
    2. It is set in the field, not the mill: Recovery depends on sucrose accumulated in the cane stalk, which needs sunlight and aeration in the ripening months, so a waterlogged crop lowers recovery even where tonnage holds up.

    What are B-heavy and C-heavy molasses?

    1. Molasses grades mark how much sugar is left behind: Molasses is the residue after sugar crystals are extracted, and B-heavy molasses is drawn off at an earlier stage than C-heavy molasses, so it retains more fermentable sugar.
    2. The grade decides the sugar sacrificed: One tonne of ethanol from C-heavy molasses costs almost no sugar, B-heavy costs more, and direct juice or syrup costs the most, which is why diversion policy is set grade by grade.

    India’s sugar balance sheet: what do the numbers show?

    Sugar Year (Oct-Sep)Opening StocksDomestic OutputDomestic ConsumptionExportsClosing Stocks
    2016-1772.5202.62244.480.4639.41
    2017-1839.41323.28253.96.32104.71
    2018-19104.71331.6225538143.33
    2019-20143.33273.8525359.4104.78
    2020-21104.78311.22607283.98
    2021-2283.98359.2526211071.23
    2022-2371.233312816457.23
    2023-2457.23319295180.23
    2024-2580.23261.8284850.03
    2025-26*50.03279280841.03

    All figures in lakh tonnes. *Industry estimates. Source: National Federation of Cooperative Sugar Factories Ltd.

    1. The season starts with just over 50 lakh tonnes: Opening stocks for 2025-26 stood at 50.03 lakh tonnes, so total sugar available after adding production works out to about 329 lakh tonnes.
    2. Consumption and exports leave 41 lakh tonnes: Deducting domestic consumption of 280 lakh tonnes and exports of 8 lakh tonnes closes the season at around 41 lakh tonnes.
    3. That is the lowest in nine years: The last time closing stocks were lower was 39.41 lakh tonnes in 2016-17.
    4. A disputed opening figure makes it worse: Some in the industry hold that opening stocks were only 48 lakh tonnes rather than 50.03 lakh tonnes, which would take closing stocks to 39 lakh tonnes, the lowest since 2008-09.
    5. The peak was three seasons of surplus: Closing stocks ran to 143.33 lakh tonnes in 2018-19 and were still 104.78 lakh tonnes in 2019-20, so the current tightness follows a period of overhang, not chronic scarcity.

    Why did production fall so far below projection?

    1. The apex body projected a large crop: The Indian Sugar and Bio-energy Manufacturers Association (ISMA), the association of private sugar mills, estimated gross production for the 2025-26 season at 343.5 lakh tonnes in early November 2025. After 34 lakh tonnes of ethanol diversion, it pegged net output at 309.5 lakh tonnes.
    2. The actual crop came in far smaller: Latest industry estimates put gross production at 309 lakh tonnes and ethanol diversion at 30 lakh tonnes, leaving net output at 279 lakh tonnes. Net output is therefore 30.5 lakh tonnes below the 309.5 lakh tonnes originally projected on a net basis.
    3. Excess rain hit the crop at the wrong time: The cane crop in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Gujarat suffered excess rainfall in September and October last year, with a delayed withdrawal of the southwest monsoon.
    4. Waterlogging cut both tonnage and recovery: Waterlogged fields combined with a lack of sunshine deprived the standing crop of aeration and daylight. That affected cane growth and sucrose accumulation in the stalks, lowering yields and mill recovery.
    5. The two tropical States missed badly: ISMA had projected Maharashtra at 130 lakh tonnes and Karnataka at 63.5 lakh tonnes, and their mills produced only 99.2 lakh tonnes and 47.2 lakh tonnes.
    6. Uttar Pradesh lost output to disease and pest: Factories in the State produced 89.7 lakh tonnes against an earlier estimate of 103.2 lakh tonnes. Red rot fungal disease and the top shoot borer insect pest were the chief causes, and the dominant Co-0238 cane variety has grown increasingly susceptible to both.

    What turned a shortfall into a price spike?

    1. Prices were flat for most of the season: Average ex-factory prices in Maharashtra fell from Rs 38.31 to Rs 36.98 per kg between September 2025 and April 2026, then recovered to Rs 38.23 by June. They rose from July, averaging Rs 41.85 per kg that month.
    2. Declared mill stocks were doubted: Some liquidity-strapped mills had already sold sugar beyond their government-fixed monthly release quotas and had little left. The stocks they declared existed on paper.
    3. A second bad monsoon was priced in early: High rainfall deficiency in June, particularly in Maharashtra and Karnataka, convinced the trade that yields and production would take a hit in the 2026-27 season as well.
    4. Buyers and sellers both moved first: Larger merchants, stockists and bulk industrial consumers began taking positions before July. From August some mills started holding back sales in anticipation of higher prices ahead of the festival season.

    Where does India’s ethanol actually come from?

    1. Sugarcane supplies under a third: Of 810.67 crore litres of ethanol supplied to oil marketing companies for blending between November 2025 and July 2026, only 259.24 crore litres or 32 per cent came from sugarcane-based feedstock.
    2. Direct juice and syrup is the largest cane route: Direct juice or syrup contributed 147.6 crore litres, B-heavy molasses 98.19 crore litres and C-heavy molasses 13.45 crore litres.
    3. Grain supplies the balance: Distilleries using grain-based feedstock supplied 551.43 crore litres or 68 per cent of the total.
    4. Maize leads the grain feedstock: Maize accounted for 288 crore litres, Food Corporation of India rice 207.1 crore litres and broken or damaged foodgrains 56.33 crore litres.

    Is ethanol diversion the cause of the spike or a scapegoat for a crop failure?

    1. The diversion looks large in isolation: Thirty lakh tonnes of sugar went into ethanol in the current season, which is more than two-thirds of the season’s projected closing stock.
    2. The crop failure was larger than the diversion: Gross production before any diversion came in 34.5 lakh tonnes below the initial gross estimate of 343.5 lakh tonnes, so the sugar lost to the weather exceeded the sugar lost to fuel.
    3. Two-thirds of blended ethanol never touched cane: The blending target is being met mainly out of maize and rice, so cutting cane diversion to zero would remove only a third of the programme’s feedstock demand and not a third of the price.
    4. Reversing diversion moves the problem, it does not remove it: Ethanol sales are the payment stream that lets mills clear cane dues on time, so a ban on juice and B-heavy diversion converts a consumer price problem into a farmer arrears problem.

    What has the government done to check sugar prices?

    1. Exports banned on 13 May: All sugar exports were banned until 30 September 2026. It was a precautionary move rather than a response to a confirmed shortage.
    2. Duty-free imports opened this week: Import of up to 10 lakh tonnes of raw sugar at zero duty was allowed until 31 October, against the standard tariff of 100 per cent on the sweetener.
    3. Refiners at Kandla will process the raws: The raw sugar can be processed by companies operating refineries at Gujarat’s Kandla port, such as Shree Renuka Sugars and Shri Dutta India Private Ltd. The refined output can supply the market until Indian mills begin cane crushing from end-October to early November.
    4. Stock limits imposed on 28 July: A stocking limit of 400 tonnes was imposed on all sugar dealers, and no dealer may hold any sugar beyond 30 days of receiving it.
    5. Bulk buyers put under disclosure on 13 August: Mills were directed by letter to furnish details of bulk consumers such as soft drink and confectionery makers and sweetmeat sellers who bought 500 tonnes or more annually, directly or through agents, during the 2025-26 financial year.
    6. A diversion curb is expected next: The government is expected to direct mills not to manufacture ethanol from direct sugarcane juice and B-heavy molasses in the 2026-27 season, on the stated priority of augmenting domestic sugar supply.

    Challenges to the Ethanol Blended Petrol Programme

    1. Grain has crowded out cane as feedstock: Grain-based distilleries now supply more than twice the volume the cane routes do, which shifts the food security question from sugar to cereals. Eg. Food Corporation of India rice was released to distilleries in the current supply year. Fix. Cap grain feedstock at a notified share of annual blending and reserve open market cereal releases for the public distribution system.
    2. Procurement prices have not tracked cane costs: Ethanol procurement prices have stayed largely stagnant as the Fair and Remunerative Price for cane has risen, squeezing distillery margins. Eg. Cane FRP rose from Rs 285 per quintal in 2020-21 to Rs 355 per quintal in 2025-26. Fix. Index the ethanol procurement price for each feedstock route to the notified cane price through a published formula.
    3. Distillation capacity sits underused: Mills built distilleries on the expectation of assured diversion, and capacity idles whenever policy switches back to sugar. Eg. Many mills face underutilised distillation capacity in the current season. Fix. Publish a three-year rolling diversion band so investment decisions are made against a stated range rather than an annual notification.
    4. Higher blends carry a vehicle cost: Ethanol has a lower energy density than petrol, so fuel efficiency falls by roughly 2 to 6 per cent at higher blend levels and older engines face material compatibility issues. Eg. Vehicles manufactured before E20 compliance norms were not certified for the current blend. Fix. Mandate a labelled dual fuel dispensing option at retail outlets so owners of non-compliant vehicles retain a lower blend choice.
    5. Cane ethanol carries a heavy water footprint: Sugarcane is grown largely in water-stressed tropical districts, so cane-based ethanol transfers an irrigation burden to the fuel sector. Eg. Maharashtra and Karnataka face groundwater depletion in the same belts that supply mill cane. Fix. Restrict juice and B-heavy diversion licences to mills that have converted a notified share of their command area to drip irrigation.

    Conclusion

    The sugar price spike is the result of a crop that came in 34.5 lakh tonnes below projection in gross terms, stocks doubted by the trade and positions taken ahead of the festival season, not of ethanol diversion that supplied under a third of blended fuel. The government has answered on the supply side, with an export ban, duty-free raw imports, dealer stock limits and bulk-buyer disclosure. A curb on cane-based ethanol in 2026-27 would trade a consumer price problem for a cane arrears problem. The season will close on the tightest stock position in nine years, and next season’s crop is already being discounted for a deficient June.

    “[2025] Consider the following statements:

    Statement I: Of the two major ethanol producers in the world, i.e., Brazil and the United States of America, the former produces more ethanol than the latter.

    Statement II: Unlike in the United States of America, where corn is the principal feedstock for ethanol production, sugarcane is the principal feedstock for ethanol production in Brazil.

    Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

    (a) Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II explains Statement I

    (b) Both Statement I and Statement II are correct but Statement II does not explain Statement I

    (c) Statement I is correct but Statement II is not correct

    (d) Statement I is not correct but Statement II is correct